To Mark Shea and Commenters

Mark Shea derides Dark Enlightenment with a bit of snark and sarcasm.

As socially maladjusted jerks always do, they trumpet their moral repulsiveness as a mark of “courage” and declare anybody who holds to actual Christian beliefs about the moral evils of racism are part of something called “The Cathedral” (an amorphous bogeyman compact of designated enemies critical of racialism).

I would like to point out the morally repulsive words of a few socially maladjusted jerks:

I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie; my conscience joins with the holy Spirit in bearing me witness that I have great sorrow and constant anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and separated from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kin according to the flesh. They are Israelites; theirs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.

And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, “Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.” He said in reply, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But the woman came and did him homage, saying, “Lord, help me.” He said in reply, “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.” Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour.

One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, “Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons.” That testimony is true. Therefore, admonish them sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith,instead of paying attention to Jewish myths and regulations of people who have repudiated the truth.

When will Mark Shea and his followers rise up and condemn this evil? How dare these people love their own race and call other races dogs and liars.

****

Also, some of his commenters have commented on the evils of autocracy. I would like to point out the evil words of these same evil people on autocracy:

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

They came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion. You do not regard a person’s status but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or should we not pay?” Knowing their hypocrisy he said to them, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius to look at.” They brought one to him and he said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They replied to him, “Caesar’s.” So Jesus said to them, “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.’ They were utterly amazed at him.

When will Mark Shea and his commenters condemn these evil authoritarians?

****

I left a comment simply posting the Bible verse locations, then a sarcastic comment along the lines of: “How dare that that wicked, wicked Jesus and infernal Paul say those things?”

It seems either the Bible or sarcasm are not allowed there. Given that half of Mark’s post was sarcasm and/or snark, I’ll guess the former.

Creeping Horror

Here’s a fun little test to either help internalize the creeping horror or introduce someone new to the mind virus.

The first step is to find a moderately obscure topic you would know far more about than your average English grad would. It can be anything: something related to your career, a hobby you’re deep into, your religion, an academic area you’ve studied extensively, or even pastel ponies. Choose something of which you have a deep knowledge.

You must avoid anything your average SWPL “knowledge-worker” would know; so avoid things related to coffee, indie music, HBO, pretentious literature, etc. (Alright, pastel ponies might not work). Also make sure to avoid anything overly subjective or too mainstream.

Having chosen your topic, look for articles in the mainstream news on the topic. Try the big ones: CNN, the NYT, the Washington Post, or, in Canada, the CBC. Having found a few articles from a few different sources read them.

Notice every time they are inaccurate, make a factual mistake, leave out something important, make a logical fallacy, write something that doesn’t make sense, or otherwise distort reality.

Having done this, think on the fact that every other topic covered by the media has errors to the same extent, except you don’t notice because you don’t know more about that topic than your average J-school graduate.

Then consider how you, and most everybody else, becomes informed about things they don’t know of.

This is where the horror sets in.

****

To let the horror creep in more, look to your career. Remember that obscure regulation nobody outside your particular occupation or industry would know of, the one that: made society worse, was borderline insane, the government had no business being in, allowed a person/company to rob the taxpayer, made your job more miserable than it should be, and/or was just pointless busywork to employ bureaucrats?

You probably never talked of it to anyone other than possibly the occasional rant to a friend or two or some co-workers.

Now think on the fact that there are thousands of other occupations and industries you are not employed in and where you would not be able to know that obscure regulation.

Give it a few minutes for the horror to dawn.

What’s in a Name?

The best way to identify the goals and predict the actions of a leftist or bureaucratic (redundancy) organization is to assume they are the opposite of what the name of the organization would imply if the organization were named honestly.

Thus, an organization with social justice in its name is generally both both rending social bonds and committing mass injustice.

A leftist organization with community in the name is usually destroying said community.

An organization evoking peace is generally dedicated to spreading chaos.

A leftist organization labelled Christian can generally be found destroying Christian values and hollowing out churches.

A leftist organization with prosperity or anti-poverty in its name will be creating as much poverty as possible.

The Monarch and the Poor

Calvin on the monarch and the poor:

“As God had promised to extend his care to the poor and afflicted among his people, David, as an argument to enforce the prayer which he presents in behalf of the king, shows that the granting of it will tend to the comfort of the poor. God is indeed no respecter of persons; but it is not without cause that God takes a more special care of the poor than of others, since they are most exposed to injuries and violence. Let laws and the administration of justice be taken away, and the consequence will be, that the more powerful a man is, he will be the more able to oppress his poor brethren. David, therefore, particularly mentions that the king will be the defender of those who can only be safe under the protection of the magistrate, and declares that he will be their avenger when they are made the victims of injustice and wrong. . . .

“But as the king cannot discharge the duty of succouring and defending the poor which David imposes upon him, unless he curb the wicked by authority and the power of the sword, it is very justly added in the end of the verse, that when righteousness reigns, oppressors or extortioners will be broken in pieces. It would be foolish to wait till they should give place of their own accord. They must be repressed by the sword, that their audacity and wickedness may be prevented from proceeding to greater lengths. It is therefore requisite for a king to be a man of wisdom, and resolutely prepared effectually to restrain the violent and injurious, that the rights of the meek and orderly may be preserved unimpaired. Thus none will be fit for governing a people but he who has learned to be rigorous when the case requires. Licentiousness must necessarily prevail under an effeminate and inactive sovereign, or even under one who is of a disposition too gentle and forbearing. There is much truth in the old saying, that it is worse to live under a prince through whose lenity everything is lawful, than under a tyrant where there is no liberty at all.”

The Brown Scare: Duck Edition

I’m a little late on the bandwagon, so by now you’ve probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E from the reality show, Duck Dynasty for some comments made during an interview with GQ. I made a small series of tweets when I first came across the event.

This event is significant because it is the first time the brown scare has impacted a particular person this well known to the mainstream. Sure, Watson, Dickenson, Summers, Richwine, Derbyshire, et al. were victims of the witchhunt, but none of those names are ones the average Joe on the street would rcognize. Sure, Chic-Fil-A was persecuted, but its a faceless corporation; who’s ever heard of Dan Cathy?

But Duck Dynasty is huge and Phil Robertson is a recognizable individual. It’s the most-watched nonfiction show of all time and A&E’s highest rated show fo all time. He is somebody your average middle-American knows and likes.

The culture war has been raging for a while, but mostly in words and on the political level. Phil shows the red states, the vaisyas, how far the the progressives are willing to go to enforce ideological conformity. It shows how much the elites truly do detest middle America. It makes the culture war personal by showing that they’re ready and willing to not just denounce you, but to steal your livelihood simply for speaking what you think.

Now that the working-to-middle class whites now have a sampling of the elites hatred towards them, hopefully they will see the class war being waged against them.

For hate is the only explanation* for this: Duck Dynasty is insanely profitable and popular for a second-rate cable network previously best known for Law and Order reruns. There is absolutely no business reason to mess with a formula that works. Any fool can see that the 77% of America that are Christian vastly outnumber the <4% of America that is gay.

The cultural elites hate the conservative low-to-middle class whites that are the primary consumers of the show and they hate the Christian morality and traditional family structures the show portrays.

They wish to destroy these whites, their lifestyle, and their morality.

Oh, how the elites at A&E must rue how their attempt to mock the rednecks has backfired. I would have loved to see their faces when they realized their laugh-at-the-rednecks show become popular for all the ‘wrong’ reasons. It’s Archie Bunker all over again.

In a cultural wasteland of “reality” programming showcasing degenerates, freaks, perverts, broken homes, blackened souls, and empty, twisted hearts, Duck Dynasty focuses on a normal, functional, loving family holding to a solid moral framework and enjoying their lives. It presents a cultural alternative to the broken, empty world the cultural elites are trying to force onto the masses.

Whatever our opinions of TV, the simple fact is most Americans are consumers of TV. Duck Dynasty is one of the few shows to show working-class whites, Christianity, and traditional morality in a positive light and it is one of the few that gives the masses something moral and uplifting.

For this Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson deserves support.

*There is a very small chance this was a publicity stunt by A&E. I don’t think its likely, but you never know.

Labels and Libertarianism

Michael Anissimov has put out the 5 premises of neoreaction with which a someone must totally agree to be a neoreactionary. He argues that “anyone who disagrees with any one of them is almost certainly not a reactionary.”

I agree fully with all the points except possibly #4, which got me thinking about the rather petty problem of self-labelling. Particularly the fact that my self-descriptive label on my about page has been “reactionary libertarian” since I last updated it months ago.

I hold to a form of libertarianism, anarcho-monarchism, as the optimal form of government for English people, something which I just commented on that a couple weeks back. If asked I’d describe myself as a reactionary anarcho-monarchist.

But then again, I don’t “make personal freedom axiomatic“; rather I hold to the principal of subsidiarity. I do not “refuse to consider the negative externalities of that freedom to traditional structures” but rather I believe these structures are best preserved by distributing power primarily to the individual, family, and the community to best “foster community, family, and social cohesion”.

I definitely do hold to the “socialism” of “family and friends helping each other of their own free will.” (I wouldn’t call it socialism though).

Rather than not caring “if a libertarian society would leave many out in the cold” I have thought of the problem of natural slaves, although, simply having strong community values and mores from birth would probably take care of the problem.

I don’t think any who have read my blog are overly concerned about me being “excessively materialistic” in my outlook.

It would seem his criticisms of libertarianism do not apply to me or my thinking.

So, maybe I fall into the category of “theoretically compatible with libertarianism, but is not compatible with the mood and spirit of libertarianism”?

Or am I simply an unwitting entryist?

Could it be possible I’m “lonely and want friends to debate politics with, or [am] intrigued by the personalities of reactionaries, though they are not one”?

Or maybe by rejecting the axiom of a natural right to freedom, I am simply not a libertarian, whatever the similarities?

Maybe it’s time to retire the libertarian label.

I’ve worn it for many a year, but maybe I’m in the ideological territory of post-libertarianism and the label no longer fits.

Neoreaction and Subsidarity

One of the themes of neoreaction is that different groups of people will naturally evolve different forms of government and a government that is optimal for one group may fail when applied to another.

For example, anarcho-monarchism may be right for the anglosphere, but would likely fail outside of the natural institutions and culture that have evolved within the anglosphere.

As Bryce puts it:

The insight of neoreaction, contrasting this, is that the differences between groups do significantly determine the optimal form of governance. To different groups, different political doctrines. Insofar as different treatment of groups is institutionalized, it tends to be institutionalized in respect of the differences those groups. A different group of people calls for a difference in evaluation. This will not and in most cases should not be simplistic, but again, the most optimal forms of evaluation are not going to be able to be wielded by every society.

If national groups require differing forms of government would not regional, or local groups require the same. Two different counties, towns, or even neighbourhoods may have different optimal forms of government.

Because of this the principle of subsidiarity fits naturally within neoreaction:

One of the key principles of Catholic social thought is known as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.

Subsidiarity is often a basic and explicit principle of reaction, particularly Catholic reaction, but in neoreaction it tends to be implicitly accepted but not formally acknowledged. For example, Moldbug’s patchwork is inherently subsidiaritist in nature, but I do not remember coming across him explicitly promoting the principle. Searching google for neoreaction and subsidiarity, bring up mostly Nick Steves‘ comments and a bit of Bryce’s work, as would be expected.

The primary purpose of this post is to make more  encourage neoreactionaries to pay more explicit attention to, what I believe to be, an underlying principle of neoreaction, subsidiarity.

****

From this, a reactionary basis for libertarianism or anarchism can be reached. Rather than basing libertarian thought around such things as non-existent human rights, libertarian thought can be derived from the subsidiarity principle.

The individual is the smallest and simplest human organization possible. If everything is to be governed by the smallest and simplest organization capable and an individual is capable of governing itself, it stands to reason that libertarianism is the optimal form of governance.

The problem with this formulation is that not all individuals are capable of governing themselves. Natural slaves, those constitutionally incapable of governing themselves, present a challenge to this form of organization.

Thus we come back to the original theme, different groups of people will have differing optimal forms of governance.

In a society with few, if any, natural slaves, anarcho-monarchism would be the optimal form of government. Most people could govern themselves, the presence of a king would ensure his citizenry refrained from trying to govern each other, and the few natural slaves could easily be cared for through private, charitable organizations.

Thus, for Englishmen, a self-reliant people used to freedom and self-organization with strong natural social institutions, anarcho-monarchism is the optimal form of governance.

For other peoples, with a higher proportion of natural slaves, other more restrictive forms of governance may be necessary.

****

From this we can also discern a factor in why the size and power of government has increased while the non-English population has increased.

As non-English populations have been imported into English countries, the proportion of natural slaves have increased. More natural slaves necessitates more governance.

Thus, immigration from countries where the populations lack English virtues of self-reliance, spontaneous self-organization, and freedom will necessarily lead to more governance.

This is but one reason why immigration, particularly from incompatible cultures, should be severely restricted.

****

We now come to the post that inspired this post, a Town without Big Corporations:

There is no question in my mind that this town has saved itself from eventual decline. Not only is it much less ugly and depressing than nearby towns with chain stores but one has the sense that the people who live there identify with it as a community and feel some loyalty and pride. I say that based on my experiences simply talking and listening to the people who live there. So even if it allowed chains, but restricted their garish signs, the town would be worse off.

Instead of a Pizza Hut, there are individually-owned pizza restaurants and a couple of young entrepreneurs take a traveling wood-burning oven to the farmer’s market. People raise goats, sheep and chickens and sell the meat. There are a number of cheese makers who seem to do reasonably well and who sell things immeasurably superior to corporate cheese.

According to free market radicals, this town is engaging in practices that are fundamentally wrong. It is engaging in explicit protectionism in favor of small businesses. Or free market radicals will say that it’s okay to do this kind of thing here and there on a small scale, but the underlying principle of restricting commerce is immoral and tyrannical.

First, Laura is simply incorrect, but incorrect in an understandable way that almost every person is incorrect today.

The free market and large corporations are not one and the same. In fact, corporations, particularly limited liability joint-stock corporations, are a government-manufactured and -enabled institution that distorts the free market. The corporate takeover of the Anglosphere is not a product of free markets, but rather another government intrusion into the private lives of English citizens.

While I can’t say with utmost certainty, but removing the government-created, limited liability, joint-stock corporations from the free market would most likely halt the corporate takeover of the Anglosphere. How many would be willing to become involved in a world-spanning enterprise and be held responsible for the entirity of what the organization does?

Neoreactionaries should oppose the corporate system, as they are another failing of modernism.

Aside from that though, as a free market reactionary, the free market is the most efficient method of wealth-production in almost all cases; this is historically unarguable.

But wealth-creation efficiency is not the end of society; different peoples may have differing goals for society.

In societies without the basic levels of common trust, neutral courts, and non-corrupt government found within the Anglosphere, the free market may not function at all and/or what may be called a “free market” may be nothing of the sort and may actively harm people.

In the Anglosphere, I would not oppose economic regulation by the king, but I would oppose any regulation by our current democratic, national governments. Almost all economic regulation in our national democracies is created for the good of the state-created corporations, and almost all work against the independent entrepreneur.

Not to mention national regulation thoroughly violates the principle of subsidiarity.

On the local level though, local communities should be free to regulate commerce as they wish. Our social institutions have been annihilated by modern progressivism; some local regulations over commerce should be fine until the English people reassert their historical freedoms under the king.

Cheers to Rob Ford

Some of you may have heard of Toronto mayor Rob Ford and his current cocaine scandals. Its one of the few times that a Canadian politician has gotten this much international attention, and from a simple mayor no less.

Fellow traditionalist Richard Anderson thinks he should leave his office, but I disagree.

Sadly, Rob Ford is one of the few vaisya politicians in Canada willing to stand against a political culture made almost entirely of Brahmin. Because of this he’s popular, at least in Toronto’s suburbs, which “aren’t part of the real Toronto” if you ask any of the elitist Brahmins who oppose Ford.  Some thought Harper and his conservatives might fight, but aside from a few minor changes (the gun registry and dismantling the wheat board) their rule has been almost insignificantly different from those of the Liberals prior.

He’s not a reactionary in any sense, but he is a vaisya’s vaisya, because of this he has earned the enmity of the brahmins far out of proportion to his actual power and status. He has been hounded mercilessly by the Cathedral. Really, has any other Canadian politician, even our prime minister, received as much international attention, all negative, this year as this one mayor?

His cocaine scandal has dwarfed that of a national (socialist) party leader being caught naked by police in a massage parlour known for trafficking in underage prostitutes. In fact, shortly after those revelations, “Smiling Jack” was all but deified upon his death. They dwarf the revelations of another national party leader. Trudeau, who admitted to smoking weed while working as an MP. despite this, his hereditary assumption to the liberal throne was all but a given despite his sole qualification consisting of being substitute teacher (and being named Trudeau).

Nope, Rob Ford has been demonized because he is not one of them. He is not the inner party, the enlightened. He is an outsider that dares defy the brahmins in their Citadel; the home of the (Red) Star and the state controlled CBC. Even worse, he has the unmitigated gall to be successful in opposing them and being popular while doing so, turning democracy against the champions of it.

The fight over Rob Ford is one of the prime examples of the democratic, class war between the vaisyas and the brahmins. The brahmins control every bit of leverage, almost all the press coverage, most of the major blogs, all of the universities, and the bureaucracy. The entirety of the Cathedral in Canada, along with parts of international Cathedral, has been been arrayed against him, yet he stands against them where they are strongest, with only the quiet support of his class.

So here’s to Rob Ford. Long may he govern.

Is Rob Ford a good politician? No, not really. But, he is the best the vaisyas have in Canada. He is the only one sticking it to the Cathedral; the only one even trying to fight the left.

Every day he remains in office is one more day the brahmin’s are blasphemed in their strongest cathedral. That alone makes him worthy of support, whatever his other failings.

The system has failed, as it was designed to, and the collapse is inevitable; at the very least we can enjoy the mockery Ford is making of of our self-proclaimed betters.

The only sad part is, that this is what one bumbling man with a spine fighting for the vaisyas can accomplish. What if the vaisyas could actually produce real politicians that had the courage of their convictions? What if we had a charismatic, competent leader who was ideologically strong and firmly loyal to his class?

Think of how successful he could be; we might even be able to turn the tide against the collapse.

If only better men of our class would stand and fight as Ford has.

Sex – A Response to Scott Alexander

Scott over at Slate Star Codex has created the Anti-Reactionary FAQ, probably the first rational, comprehensive critique of neoreaction. (It also turns out he like Turisas. Huzzah!) Much respect goes to Scott for this; it was a comprehensive and fair work (unlike some pieces of drek), which, over time, (neo)reactionaries will have to respond to. Michael has already done a short, preliminary response, while Jim has critiqued one particular aspect of the FAQ.

My humble blog was mentioned a couple of times. He mentioned my analysis of how the communists won, and quickly analyzes a Republican platform in response. I’ll provide a greater response to this in the future, when I have the time for a decent one.

For this post, I’ll concentrate on his section “5: Are modern ideas about race and gender wrongheaded and dangerous?” where my post, One More Condom in the Landfill, was referenced. I will be working on the gender aspect for this post and will respond by section number. So, my focus will be on 5.1-5.3, as 5.4 gets into stuff on social justice rather than sex itself. I should note Bryce has already made a post concerning this, but his is more theoretical in nature, so I will make my own.

****

5.1

Sexual surveys on lifetime partners are usually not fully reliable, as the number can vary significantly depending on estimation strategies. Women underestimate, men overestimate.

The data on lifetime partners is, as he points out, minimal. 6 for men in 1970 and 2006, 2 for women in 1970 and 4 in 2006. He ends up using French data instead, but the French are not English and have a different culture, so I’m not sure if this would hold.

Instead, let’s look at bastardy rates, a more easily measured proxy for promiscuity. As we can see on this graph of CDC data from the Heritage Foundation, bastardy has been on a steady increase since some time around 1960.

This steady increase has occurred despite the increasing availability of both the pill and abortion. It is obvious that sluttiness and promiscuity has increased.

If we look back to one of Scott’s sources we find this gem:

American illegitimacy ratios in the eighteenth century and after the Civil War seem to have been about one or two percent, well below the five or six percent found in England and Wales at the time(s) (Smith, 1980, p. 372; Wells, 1980, pp. 354-55; Laslett et al., 1980, p. 18) and very far below the 30-plus-percent ratios found in the U.S. in the 1990’s.

Imagine a bastardry rate of only 2%.

It is obvious sluttiness has increased drastically.

****

5.1.1

In this section, Scott ignores the religious argument, and I will too, for one argues with one’s (reasonable) opponents on grounds both can accept.

The decline of marriage would be the major argument, as he acknowledges. He posts this graph but misses the commentary on the graph.

The commentary states:

My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5-9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience. Older women, and women with more dating experience, are more likely to have learned which personal qualities will work best for them in a marriage partner. As a result, such women choose more wisely and tend to experience lower divorce rates. Now, it also happens to be the case that older women have had more time and occasion for pre-marital sex! Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5-9 pre-marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men.

Scott does not take this confounding variable into effect in this piece.

This one chart comes from unpublished data from anonymous source. Sadly, it is the only source I know of where divorce risk is measured by number of premarital partners.

Most data either looks at either whether a person had premarital sex or not, or lifetime partners, which can be confounded by additional sex partners post-divorce.

If we look at data posted by the Social Pathologist elsewhere:

Only four nationally representative studies have examined whether premarital sexual experiences are linked to divorce (Heaton, 2002; Kahn & London, 1991; Laumann et al., 1994; Teachman, 2003). Nevertheless, the core finding—the association between premarital sex and increased risks of divorce—is robust[Ed]. Teachman (2003) found that women who had sex only with their future husbands did not have higher risks of marital dissolution, which suggests that the premarital-sex effect on divorce is related primarily to having sex with multiple partners

Each additional sexual partner increased the odds of infidelity by 7% while increasing years of education seem to decrease the risk by 10%.

The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.

Here’s some data showing adultery risk is higher for promiscuous women.

Here’s another chart showing that delaying sexual activity reduces divorce risk:

Here’s a chart, it counts all partners not just premarital ones:

Even beside divorce, there’s a large array of social and personal ills that come from promiscuity and higher numbers of sexual partners.

There is other information, but it all points to the same conclusion; the more sexual partners and the younger the woman is when first having sex, the more likely the risk of divorce.

By focusing only on that single chart, Scott misses a wide array of data which all tell the same story: a slutty women is a divorce risk and an adultery risk.

Even if we accept that one chart alone, Scott’s argument falls apart.

Being a virgin leads to a greatly lowered chance of divorce, a fact Scott just shrugs and dismisses it, accepting that premarital sex is an inescapable norm among the non-religious .

The whole point is that premarital sex should not be the norm. People (at least those intending to marry) should not be having premarital sex.

A doubling  (or tripling) of the divorce rate is not something we should just accept. It is damaging to the very fabric of society as parents’ divorce is associated with an increase in almost every socially non-desirable trait we measure (from poverty to crime to poor educational achievement).

[Edit: Removed two charts that did not fit with the main point and simply confused things. Moved a few things around, added a bit, and generally improved section 5.1.1. Thanks Ozymandias. 25/10/2013]

****

5.1.2

In a broad perspective the point is correct – empirically, men with more psychopathic traits, less agreeableness, and greater narcissism have more sexual partners.

He agrees on this point, but goes on to equivocate between men and women, then essentially shrug his shoulders (“I have no idea how to solve the object-level problems”).

The reactionary project (at least those that aren’t PUAs) is attempting to do more; we have a model we know works from history and we are trying to reimplement it.

Simply allowing the cads to run amuk and having the good men go without is a recipe for social disaster, I’ve outlined here, here, and here.

*****

5.2

He accepts that divorces have elevated, but doesn’t acknowledge there is a steady, long-term trend of increase since 1860 and divorce rates per married couple still remain almost double what they were at 1960.

Also, he says that progressivism has created a natural memetic “immunity” meme to divorce.

I would suggest instead the decline of divorce is instead linked to the decline in marriage rates; ie. those who are less committed to marriage and more likely to divorce are moving in together rather than marrying then divorcing, driving the divorce rate down.

You can see this easily in the chart Scott provided:

Divorces spike, then as marriage rates decline so to do divorce rates per married couple, but this rate remains almost double what it was in 1960. The decline in divorce rates per population is decreasing, simply because the family is disintegrating by not getting married.

He asks why progressives are less likely to divorce:

College-educated women have about half the divorce rate of the non-college-educated (source). More conservative states have higher divorce rates than more liberal states (source). Atheists have divorce rates below the national average (source). Some of these factors seem to remain even when controlling for wealth and the other usual confounders (source, source).

The education and atheist arguments are mistaking IQ and/or a low time preference for progressivism (atheists tend to be smarter on average than religious folks because most unintelligent people stick with their default philosophy, which, in the US, is religious). Conservative (ie. Southern) states would likely have high divorce rates due to high levels of blacks which have a much higher levels of divorce. (Nevada, likely has the highest divorce rate for what seems like a self-evident reason; Vegas).

Essentially what Scott has shown here but not noticed is a long-argued contention of reactionaries: smart upper-class folks can have progressive values and still function because they are smart upper-class folks, but when applied to the less intelligent lower classes these values are socially destructive, because poor, stupid people do not have the time-preferences to function despite the harm from these values.

****

5.3/5.3.1

Here he essentially argues that the depopulation of the US doesn’t matter because foreigners with foreign values are immigrating here and replacing native Americans. Also, you’re a racist if you think this is a problem.

I will just say that this is exactly the problem that reactionaries have with depopulation; he’s not actually refuting anything, he’s simply confirming our arguments. (Also, every reactionary is used to being called racist, so, that won’t really work).

If Scott can’t see the problem with foreign populations with different cultures and values replacing the current population, I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince him here.

I just hope he doesn’t mind losing his progressive values when non-progressive minorities start voting against progressive laws.

****

5.3.2

He’s probably right here on the effects of low-IQ fertility on intelligence, which is why I don’t (or at least try not to) espouse the idiocracy line. The effects of dysgenics through fertility are something that will not substantially effect us, in and of themselves, for a very long time, too long a timeline to worry about overmuch now.

Instead our focus would be on the mass importation of low-IQ immigrants, which will have a more immediate effect on society.

I would also focus on the effects of single-parent, low-IQ homes with many children on the national treasury through government welfare, education, and health programs. This problem will rear its ugly head far sooner than dysgenics due to fertility rates will.

****

So, there we have my first kick at the FAQ. I’m sure there will be others down the road.

The Communists Won

This post has been loosely in the works for a while and was created to prove empirical claim #1 of neoreaction from Anissimov. Scott at Slate Star Codex used a computer program to analyze the results, but the graph is prima facie ludicrous. It is simply logically impossible that the US has ideologically stayed the same while the welfare state has grown as much as it has.

Recently Handle has done a little history of communism in the US for us, which prompted me to dust the post off and finish.

****

The United States, and most of the rest of the West, are communist. Not in a pejorative sense, but in a simple ideological sense. The majority of people in the west accept communist politics and most western countries are communist in practice if not form.

Note, when I say communist, I do not mean Stalinist, Leninist, Maoist, etc. Just as communism took different forms in Cuba, the USSR, China, et al., North American communism took its own form.

I know the immediate objection: “But the US is run by the Democrats and Republicans, both right-wing parties of capitalists. The socialist party is a joke, and the communist party almost non-existent. How can you call the US a communist country?”

Again, America is communist in ideology and function, not necessarily in form. To prove that I am going to go back about 85 years ago to 1928. The Communist Party USA released a platform (Google Books version) for the election of William Z. Foster to president. He ran against Herbert Hoover and Al Smith getting 0.13% of the vote.

Let’s look at their demands (summarized) and compare them to our modern world:

****

II*: The Curse of Unemployment

1. Unemployment insurance.
2. 40-hour, 5-day workweek forbidding overtime.
3. Unemployment insurance of 8 weeks wages.
4. Public kitchens providing free meals to the unemployed.
5. Free medical care of the unemployed.
6. Public works to create employment.
7. Abolition of vagrancy laws.

The US currently has EI, a 40-hour workweek (with optional, paid overtime), SNAP, Medicaid, and numerous public works.

The federal government no longer has vagrancy laws, although states and municipalities do. Vagrancy laws have been narrowed considerably.

The US has adopted 5 and a half out of 6 Communist demands related to unemployment. (I counted #1 & 3 as a single demand).

****

III: The Offensive of the Bosses

1. 40-hour, 5-day workweek with 48 hours consecutive rest.
2. High wages.
3. Fight against capitalist rationalization and mass production.
4. Organize the unorganized.
5. Destroy company unions.
6. Amalgamate craft unions into industrial unions; democratize trade unions.
7. Political struggle in addition to union struggle.

These points aren’t as clear-cut, many being calls to struggle rather than specific demands.

Of these demands, they’ve achieved a 40-hour week, high wages, and destroying company unions. The democratization of unions and amalgamation of unions has mostly been accomplished (minus one or two industries). Given that the unions control huge swaths of the Democratic Party, the last point has been achieved as well.

The communists failed to stem mass production and rationalization and unionization rates peaked at almost 35% in 1954.

The US has adopted 5 of the 7 points related to fighting the bosses.

****

IV: The Heroic Struggle of the Miners

1. Build a new militant union in the industry, eliminate Lewis.
2. Organize unorganized.
3. Support two local strikes.
4. Organize relief for struggling miners.
5. Railroad workers don’t haul scab coal.

The third is a local problem and fifth an outdated problem, not national political problems, so I won’t count those.

In the 1970’s most miners were unionized, but unionization rates have fallen to only about 42% since and relief has been organized through more general government programs for struggling miners.

On the other hand, Lewis was not eliminated and the UMW is still the dominant mine union today.

So, the Communists obtained 2 out of 3 of their long-term, national demands related to the coal industry, although, one of them since slipped away.

****

V: Colonies and Imperialist War

1. Abolish the imperialist army and navy.
2. Stop fighting against the revolutions in China and Nicaraugua.
3. Withdraw from Latin America and the Pacific.
4. Independence for American colonies.
5. Hands off Mexico.
6. Withdraw from puppet government in Latin America.
7. Abandon extra-territoriality privileges in the Third World.
8. End current military, set up democratic military.
9. Withdraw from the imperialist peace treaties, the world court, the League of Nations, and cancel war debt.

Here the communists did not get their desires. The army still exists and isn’t democratic. The US is in the UN and world court and still has imperialist peace treaties. The US still has extraterritorial jurisdiction throughout the world. The war debts have not been cancelled.

On the other hand they have stopped interfering in China and Nicaragua. They mostly leave Mexico alone; puppet governments in Latin America is debatable.

Puerto Rico is still colonized, although most other colonies have been freed but still heavily influenced. So, maybe a half for this one.

So, the Communist got only 2.5 out of 10 here, and the two they did get were local ones were they started interfering in the ME instead. Replace Mexico, China, and Nicaragua with Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan and the Communists get 0.5 out of 10.

****

VI: Defence of the Soviet Union

The USSR collapsed; so we’ll just say the communists failed totally here. All four demands were not met, but this was related to the failings of the USSR, rather than the US, so we’ll just leave these out of the calculations.

****

VII: Capitalist Democracy and the Government Strike-Breaker

1. Abrogation of government by injunction.
2. Prohibition of federal troops in labour struggles.
3. Unrestricted right to strike. Unrestricted right to free press, free assemblage, and free speech for the working class.
4. Abolition of the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the President’s veto.
5. Elected judges; free legal aid.
6. Franchise for youths 18-21 and negroes.
7. Abolish anti-syndicalist laws and the Espionage Act.
8. Repeal industrial court laws.
9. Abolition of secret anti-labour organizations.
10. Abolition of media censorship.
11. Immediate release of all political prisoners.

The government by injunction mostly ended and military and quasi-military organizations no longer intervene in labour struggles. The right to strike is generally unrestricted (except a few key industries), the working class retains free press, speech, and assemblage (at least if they’re left-wing), and the media is almost entirely uncensored these days.. 18-year-olds and negroes have the vote. This biased article from Wikipedia seems to indicate secret anti-labour organizations is mostly a thing of the past.

I can’t find much on industrial courts, other than the Kansas courts which are gone. I guess this is a win for the communist.

Anti-syndicalist laws still exist, but were neutered and are almost never used. The Espionage Act still exists but has been watered down in some areas. So we’ll say they got half of this one.

Union leaders don’t go to prison anymore, but Edward Snowden might be considered a political prisoner. Overall, we’ll ignore this as a product of its time.

On the other hand the Senate and Supreme Court remain and federal judges are still appointed (but there is free legal aid).

So, 7 and a half out of 10 demands were met relating to labour relations.

****

VIII: A Labour Party

1. A labour party on all levels.
2. Exclude businesses from the party and base it around unions.
3. Join the workers party.

Hard to say. The Democratic Party and the unions are now so inseparable it can sometimes be hard to see where one begins and the other ends, but the Democrats play with big business a lot as well (as do the unions).

The third point is more a call to action than a demand.

Overall, let’s give the communists 1.5 out of 2 for this section.

****

IX: Social Legislation

1. Old age and unemployment insurance.
2. 40-hour, 5-day work-week forbidding overtime.
3. Compulsory safety and sanitation rules.
4. Effective labour inspection elected by the workers.
5. Free health care for all.

The first three demands have all been met. There is labour inspection, but they are not elected, so that gets a half-point.

Free healthcare for all does not exist, but Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare go a long way to providing “free” care, so we’ll give that a half point as well.

So, a functional 4 out of 5 demands were met here.

****

X: Tariff and Taxation

1. Abolition of indirect taxes.
2. Exemption from taxes for wage earners.
3. Exemption from taxes for farmers.
4. Graduated income taxes with full confiscation of incomes above $25k.
5. Abolish exemptions for bonds, stocks, and securities.
6. Graduated inheretance taxes.
7. Tariffs on working class necessities abolished.

Tariffs have almost entirely disappeared, so the last demand is met. The most hated indirect tax, the tariff, was mostly eliminated, but other forms of indirect taxation abound, so we’ll give the first a half-point. A graduated income tax exists, but there’s no full confiscation, so another half-point.

The bottom 2 quintiles have effective negative income tax rates, but pay payroll taxes so we’ll give that one a half-point. Farmers have a lot of tax benefits but not full exemption, so we’ll give that a half-point as well.

Capital gains are taxed,as are estates, so there’s two wins for the communists.

In tax policy, the communists had 5 out of 7 demands met.

****

XI: Plight of the Farmers

1. Five-year moratorium on farm debt.
2. Protection from monopoly prices on farming supplies.
3. Protection from special explotation by various farming related industries (like railroads).
4. $1 Billion farm relief fund.
5. Federal law against enforced farm foreclosures.
6. Abolition of taxes on farmers.
7. The land belongs to its users.
8. Freedom for agricultural workers to strike and various benefits.

The first will be ignored as it was a temporary demand, as will the land belongs to users as is not really a demand.

The trusts have been beaten. Some people think Monsanto is a monopoly, but they aren’t really a monopoly in the traditional sense. We’ll say the communists got that one, but with the Monsanto caveat.

Other than the occasional, half-hearted, ritualized complaint about the railroads (Joke: A Saskatchewan farmer walks outside on the first day of harvest to see that it hailed overnight, destroying half his crops. He looks towards the heavens, raises his fist, and yells aloud, “Damn you, CN“), I haven’t seen any complaints about the special exploitation, so we’ll say the demand was met.

The US farm bill totals $500 Billion, although, most of that is food stamps, so I guess the farmers for their relief.

Banks can still foreclose on farms and farmers still pay taxes, so those are two demands not met.

Agricultural workers do have the right to strike.

So, the communists had 4 out of 6 demands met (with the Monsanto caveat).

****

XII: Oppression of the Negroes

1. Full racial, social, and political equality for Negroes.
2. Abolition of segregation.
3. Abolition of disenfranchisement laws.
4. Abolition of laws preventing negro schooling.
5. Allow Negroes full access to restaurants and related facilities.
6. Ban lynching.
7. End discrimination of Negroes in the courts.
8. Abolish convict lease system and chain gang.
9. Abolish Jim Crow in federal employment.
10. Remove Trade Union restrictions on Negroes.
11. Equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work for Negroes.

Obviously, all of these have been met, with the minor exception of chain gangs which were revived in Arizona.

So, all 11 demands related to Negroes were met.

****

XIII: Foreign-born Workers

1. Abolish all laws discriminating against foreign-born workers.
2. Workers must unite with foreign-born workers.
3. Immediate repeal of immigration laws.
4. Equal pay for equal work for the foreign born.

The second demand is more a call to action than an actual policy demand.

The first and third demand were all met for foreign-born workers that are naturalized, but not for illegal immigrants.

The third was not met, but with the quasi-official acceptance of illegal Mexican immigrants, they might as well have.

We’ll say that the communist got 1.5 out of 3 demands met.

****

XIV: Working Women

1. Eliminate night, overtime, and job work for women.
2. Paid maternity leave during pregnancy.
3. Paid maternity leave during nursing.
4. Organize women into unions and eliminate discrimination against women in unions.
5. Equal pay for equal work.

Night, overtime, and job work haven’t been eliminated, but there are restrictions and they are optional, so  we’ll say that demand was half met.

Mothers have 12 weeks unpaid maternity leave, so maybe 0.5 out of 2 for the two demands.

Women are not free to join unions and aren’t discriminated against, so that’s another demand met.

Despite the false claims of feminists, women do get equal pay for equal work (equal work is key here). So that’s another demand met.

So, the equivalent of 3 out of 5 demands met.

****

XV: Youth, Child Labour, and Education

1. Abolish child labour.
2. $20 minimum wage for young workers.
3. Establish work-schools in factories.
4. Use schools as feeding centres for the unemployed.
5. Right to vote for everyone over 18.
6. Schools must be free, more schools built, free of religious or jingoistic instruction, free of Jim Crow, and allow teachers to organize.

Child labour was abolished, 18-year-olds can vote, and there are nutrition programs in schools, so that’s 3 demands.

Out of the five demands in one, schooling is free (except university, more schools have been built (but probably not as many as they’d like as people still complain of over-crowding), there is no religious instruction and jingoistic instruction is almost gone, there is no Jim Crow, and teachers can unionize.

So, the first two get a half point, while the others get a full one.

I don’t think work-schools have been established, but there are apprenticeship programs, so we’ll say that’s half-met.

In total, 7.5 out of 10 demands have been met.

****

XVI: Housing

1. Municipal fixing of low rents for workers.
2.  Municipal housing for workers without profit.
3. State laws against immediate eviction.
4. Compulsory repair of working-class homes by landlords.
5. Shelters for the unemployed.
6. Municipal aid to workers’ building cooperatives.

These are all local, but most large municipalities have rent control, subsidized housing, tenant regulations. and homeless shelters.

I have no idea about the last point, but I have heard of no such thing, so we’ll say the demand wasn’t met.

So, 5 out of 6 demands met in housing.

****

XVII: Prohibition

1. Repeal prohibition.
2. End local and state prohibition.
3. Energetic propaganda against alcoholism.

All 3 of these demands were met.

****

In conclusion, of the CPUSA’s 1928 platform, 66 out of 94 demands were met, or about 70% of demands. In relation to foreign relations through, 0/10 were met.

So, if we only look at domestic demands, that’s 65.5 out of 84 demands met, or 78% of demands.

Of those demands most desired by communists (ie. 40-hour, 5-day week and social programs), which were mentioned multiple times, they were all met.

Given that almost 80% of communist demands for the US were met and a number of those not met are on their way to being met (ex: paid maternity leave), we can say that the US is a communist country, in the vein of American communism.

I don’t have time to analyze the Democratic and Republican platform demands of the same year at this time, but I would bet significant sums that less than 80% of their demands were met and upheld by our present time.

Note that many European countries would have met even more of these demands, and would be even more communist than communist America.

The USA is a communist country, of that there can be no doubt.

****

* There are no demands in sections I or XVIII.

****

A few pieces have been edited (20/10/2013): Thanks to Michael Anissismov for pointing out the errors for correction.